Robinson v. Geisinger Hospital et al

Filing 108

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 98 Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation is adopted; 59 Plaintiff's third amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice; all pending motions in this ca se 31 55 57 64 65 68 69 74 76 78 79 80 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 95 96 97 98 99 101 are denied as moot; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 10/3/19. (case closed) (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL ROBINSON,

No. 4:18-CV-00989

Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.

(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

GEISINGER HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
OCTOBER 3, 2019
1.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants. ECF No
1.

2.

On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. ECF No 2.

3.

On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle issued a
screening order instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. ECF
No 7. On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF
No 11.

4.

Plaintiff then filed several other “Complaints” and “Supplements” such
that the Court and the named Defendants could not ascertain which
document or combination of documents Plaintiff intended to be his
Complaint. On June 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle issued an
Order directing Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint. ECF No

52. That Order advised Plaintiff that the Third Amended Complaint
would completely replace the previously filed complaints and
supplements. Id.
5.

On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. ECF No
59.

6.

In an August 7, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge
Arbuckle recommended that this Court (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s Third
Amended Complaint with prejudice and (2) deny all pending motions in
this case as moot. ECF No 98.

7.

On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document styled as an objection to
the Report and Recommendation. ECF No 103. However, the document
did not provide any specific objections. See id.

8.

This Court is not required to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation if no specific objections are made.
See Thomas v Duvall, 2017 WL 2928153, at *5 (MD Pa July 10, 2017),
citing Goney v Clark, 749 F2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir 1984) (stating that a court
need not conduct a de novo review if objections are not timely or
specific because doing so “would undermine the efficiency the
magistrate system was meant to contribute to the judicial process”);
FRCP 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis added).

-2-

9.

For portions of a report and recommendation to which no proper
objection is made, the court should satisfy itself that “there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Thomas, 2017 WL 2928153 at *2, quoting FRCP 72 (advisory
committee notes).

10.

This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and
Recommendation and has determined that there is no clear error on the
face of the record.

11.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a.

Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation, ECF
No 98, is ADOPTED;

b.

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, ECF No 59, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

c.

All pending motions in this case (ECF Nos 31, 55, 57, 64, 65, 68,
69, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,
93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101) are DENIED AS MOOT; and

d.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
-3-